Update to use the microgrid API v0.18 #1283
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
part:docs
This introduces the new microgrid API v0.18. Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
The microgrid API now doesn't support not reporting a rated fuse for a grid connection, so we don't need to test for that case anymore. Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
This introduces the new microgrid API v0.17. Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
The battery pool bounds calculation is buggy and these tests are wrong (see frequenz-floss#1180). By switching to using ranges of bounds, the buggy behaviour changes and make these tests fail. Fixing them is difficult without switching to using ranges natively first, so we just skip these tests for now. Signed-off-by: Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
llucax
force-pushed
the
microgrid-api-0.18
branch
from
60cf5b2 to
a996c07
Compare
| # FIXME: This might not be true forever, but the service for now seems to send | ||
| # all metrics with the same timestamp for now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this one can be removed, at least IIRC @tiyash-basu-frequenz confirmed this was going to be like this for the time being. In any case, this is a temporary transitional module, at some point we should start using the telemetry messages as they come from the API.
| if not samples.states: | ||
| return class_(component_id=samples.component_id, timestamp=timestamp) | ||
|
|
||
| # FIXME: Maybe we can have more than one, in which case we need to merge them? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think @tiyash-basu-frequenz also confirmed this was fine for now, but I don't remember if the idea is that more than one could come in the future.
| # FIXME: All of this have now a default of 0.0 because this is what it was done when | ||
| # we used the API v0.15, as we accessed the fields without checking if the fields | ||
| # really existed, so the defaul protobuf value of 0.0 for floats was used. | ||
| # We might beed to review this and if they are not present interpret them as None | ||
| # instea. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is tricky, I guess we can leave it as it is now and will have to come back to it forcibly when removing this temporary adaption layer.
| # FIXME: We assume only one range is present | ||
| # If one bound is None, we assume 0 to match the previous | ||
| # behavior of v0.15, but this should eventually be fixed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we'll also fix this when removing this adaption layer, not sure if it is worth adding a separate issue for this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we can disable pylint fixme check for this entire module and keep the FIXMEs as they are now to remember to address these issues when removing this adaption layer.
| # Old code: | ||
| # return self.component_state not in ( | ||
| # EVChargerComponentState.AUTHORIZATION_REJECTED, | ||
| # EVChargerComponentState.ERROR, | ||
| # ) and self.cable_state in ( | ||
| # EVChargerCableState.EV_LOCKED, | ||
| # EVChargerCableState.EV_PLUGGED, | ||
| # ) | ||
| # TODO: Verify this logic is correct |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe you can check this @shsms ?
| component.id | ||
| for component in component_graph.predecessors(battery_id) | ||
| if component.category == ComponentCategory.INVERTER | ||
| # TODO: Shouldn't this be (SolarInverter, HybridInverter)? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shsms ? Maybe it is better to create a separate issue anyways as this was a pre-existing issue.
| # TODO: This was using ErrorLevel.CRITICAL to see if an error was critical or | ||
| # warning. I guess now we use the separate errors and warnings fields. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you have a look at this one too @shsms ?
| # TODO: This is old validation logic, which should probably be removed | ||
| if component.id == ComponentId(0) and not isinstance( | ||
| component, GridConnectionPoint | ||
| ): | ||
| issues.append( | ||
| "Component with ID 0 should be a GridConnectionPoint, " | ||
| f"but it is a {component!r} instead." | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this check is safe to remove. I only found a previous check in an unused method _correct_graph_errors, removed in 635914c. I think I wrote this code before committing that removal.
FYI @tiyash-basu-frequenz @shsms @ela-kotulska-frequenz, I will remove this check unless someone complains.
| # TODO: This code is unreacheable, as T can't be None. We need to | ||
| # figure out which case this was supposed to handle. Maybe we need | ||
| # some sentinel value or to allow None in T. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shsms maybe you can check this one?
1 participant
This is a WIP PR, it still needs a lot of cleaning up, but all tests should be passing (minus
pylintbecause I added a few FIXME/TODOs.This PR is mostly created for having early feedback, and to allow doing some experiments to see how this works in the real world before start cleaning it up. It probably makes more sense to look at the resulting File Changes than going commit by commit at this stage.
@shsms FYI.